I had to putz around this morning just to get my fix and was chasing cars down the road in the OH-6 (heh heh..."Highway Patrol")....they pass and go around slower traffic like trucks. As we came around a corner by a dock, there was a larger ship, and as my helo approached it, a flock of birds got scared and flew off over the water.

Yes indeedy, getting closer to real world all the time!

One fear I would have is that some of the more hardcore folks will see it as "gamey" in some ways. The new, fresher, and mroe graphical interface won't help matters in that area - not that there's anything wrong with it, but it doesn't look as staid and boring so will be seen as less serious. The much more higher-intensity graphics and CFS3-ish feel will be another obstacle as well.

Personally I see it as all progress and all inevitably good just as with all past versions. Getting a sim that runs maxed-out on our rigs as they are now just means it's already reached full potential....with this one, there's HUGE potential as long as we hang in there.

_________________"Once your reputation is ruined, you can live quite freely."

Hey, some quick questions about the game that are the main selling points for me:

Have they improved ATC at all?
Are ground textures/autogen improved?
and probably most important, have they included that real-world gps data that they were talking about earlier?

I don't know how many of you guys are actual pilots, better yet, with instrument ratings, but one of the things I didn't like about FS2004 was the fact that ATC never asked for your intentions. They always automatically assigned you to the ILS at whatever airport you were going to. I also havn't seen much difference in the ground textures in the screenshots, so I was hoping that they would make some more headway there. And last, except for the new planes and a little more fluff, I don't see much difference between FS9 and FSX. That's why I'm really hoping for that correct road placement data.

I don't see a whole lot of difference either X but honestly that could be because its still just a demo or the rig running it may not be able to run it at it's capacity...I still don't like the way the shorelines look, that has always bothered me with FS9....with the improved textures we've seen in FS9 the sky & the water isn't that impressive either except for the close ups, those do look pretty good..I still think the water in IL2 looks much more real...

Yeah, same here hangman. But I can forgive textures and stuff, I was just curious. It's not like the ones in FS9 were horrible or anything, but they could still use some tweaking. It's the other two things that will be the selling point for me. If they havn't made major advancements on the atc and correct layout of roads and stuff, I don't see any reason to go spend my already stretched thin money on an FS9 update.

I do like the addition of the ultralight and the Grumman Goose, but I still don't understand why they havn't added in more business jets, like a Gulfstream IV, Falcon 2000, or any Citations or something. They've had the Lear 45 forever, and while it's gotten very old, it's still one of the favorite planes in FS. Throw in a Gulfstream IV 450 (brand new everything) and a Citation II (much older avionics, but still tons of fun to fly), and you'd have an instant hit. (Hmm... maybe it's about time I seriously looked at GMax. Anyone want to train me? :D) Mix that with flawless ATC, and most simulation addics (notice I didn't say game addicts, this would be meant more for those who want fly like it really is) would pay lots of money for such a game.

And again, I don't want to sound like I'm putting down the genre, or the FS development team at all. I don't believe there has ever been a piece of software that has attempted to and successfully sold to such an audiance that a flight sim demands. From those who want ultra-realistic experience to those who want eye candy to those who want to fly a 777 inverted under the golden gate bridge, all while being completely moddable, the FS team has always delivered. I just want perfection, is that too much to ask?

_________________
[TSF]Lt. Col. XcalibeR{5thF}
PG_Raptor

Last edited by XcalibeR on Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:20 am; edited 1 time in total

You make some great points, XCaliber, and indeed although my own screenies and enthusiasm tend to focus more on the flying-inverted-under-the-bridge side, that comes from a fun-loving nature, the other part of my enthusiasm comes from the realization that, with what amounts to a fairly full re-write, the new version didn't manage to muck anything up that I can see yet as far as the more serious and realistic side of simulation goes. That's good news, because anything could have happened during a major redesign like this...it could have gone "gamey" or totally lame, which I don't believe it did. Instead what I see is a very good baseline to grow the next versions from - much like how the last several versions were able to expand on their ancestor, which can definitely be "felt" all the way back to FS4 and even earlier.

Unfortunately I have very limited RW flight time (less than 10 hours at the helm) and am a long ways off from being instrument-rated although I've always tried to do a lot of instrument flying and ILS approaches in the sim. Aside from the visual aspects, the bennies of the new version seem to be in a smoother "feel" to the revamped flight model which is more realistic, and the inclusion of some niceties that the old baseline has lacked for a long time....like smooth panning using the mouse, etc.

There are lots of mini-reviews and opinions out there about the pro's and cons but the thing I see, that I'm happy about, is that this introduces something that was in dire need of overhaul as far as useability went (based on existing user interface standards and such) while it also seems to indicate success at keeping the best of the old functionality too. So, maybe not the great leap forward that some expected, but not any negative horror stories about it either. Personally I'm having a ball with it and get kind of a chuckle flying it around while thinking about the big long-winded recorded diatribe that was posted by the FS9 carrier designer who'd got a little deep into his meds, claiming we'd all definitely need brand new rigs to even get off the ground...

As for the immediate future, if I were to go out and get it first thing, I'm sure I'd keep FS9 around too for a good long while until the favorite add-ons catch up.

One thing they DIDN'T get rid of that I wish they had, was the dang autogen trees that get placed right at the ends of runways! I've been trying for 2 hours to set Milton's Rockwell Turbo Commander down on this dinky short strip that has a huge mountain on one side and beach on the other...with a fargin' huge OAK tree right in the way!

_________________"Once your reputation is ruined, you can live quite freely."

Ok, I made three screenies for comparison. All were taken at approx. the same place, wheater and time. All are with graphic settings maxed out. I have to say I prefer the FSX one. Only problem, is I can't run FSX with settings maxed out, I only get about 5 FPS. I get 20 with FS9. So here they are :

These are a handful of screenshot I took yesterday during a short test:

Clouds on the second one are at 10000 feet.

I didin't notice anything particularly new, except the fact the default panel is now the VC (but I saw an option to get back to the 2D panel), while the old panel can be displayes with Shift+1, like a first one amongst the many mini-panels available.

Much of the improvement must be on the graphic features, I guess, but yet most of them are already available to us through the Environmental package. What might be an addition are some effects on buildings and planes (if you switch on the navigation lights, there's a heavy reflection of them of the fuselage - I thought a bit too heavy), most of which I couldn't see, because of hardware restrictions.

As standard settings, fsX, probably after an evaluation of my hardware, fixed them at a medium-low level; at that, frame rate was still more than good. But as I pushed the sliders ahead to have a hint of the new whistles and bells - not at their max, anyway- , it dropped down at an average of 5-9 fps, and at times my rig wasn't able to refresh the ground textures, so that they got blurred - only the trees were well in sight and finely detailed - this made me think of Cfs3, but without that pestering "rolling carpet" effect.

The outcome is, as Fled says, that to take advantage of the "new" features of the game you need a brand new Ã¢â€šÂ¬.3.000,00 machine, and I don't think I can afford that amount until two years, to be optimistic. But I like the sim, at least what I saw so far - and I love the Beaver, madly - so I'll buy it and fly it at reduced graphics